Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Establishment of an Experimental Population of the Grizzly Bear in the Bitterroot Ecosystem of the States of Idaho and Montana; Environmental Impact Statement, 3411-3414 [2024-00873]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2024 / Notices
Dated: January 12, 2024.
Lauren A. Fleck,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory
Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2024–00896 Filed 1–17–24; 8:45 am]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Institutes of Health
[Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2023–0203;
FXES11130600000–223–FF06E00000]
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National
Institute of Child Health and Human
Development; Notice of Closed
Meetings
BILLING CODE 4140–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
National Institutes of Health
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National
Institute of Child Health and Human
Development; Notice of Closed
Meetings
Pursuant to section 1009 of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, as
amended, notice is hereby given of the
following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the
public in accordance with the
provisions set forth in sections
552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C.,
as amended. The grant applications and
the discussions could disclose
confidential trade secrets or commercial
property such as patentable material,
and personal information concerning
individuals associated with the grant
applications, the disclosure of which
would constitute a clearly unwarranted
invasion of personal privacy.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Name of Committee: Eunice Kennedy
Shriver National Institute of Child Health
and Human Development Special Emphasis
Panel; Implementation Science Coordinating
Center for HIV-affected Adolescents.
Date: March 26, 2024.
Time: 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Agenda: To review and evaluate grant
applications.
Place: National Institutes of Health, Eunice
Kennedy Shriver, National Institute of Child
Health and Human Development, 6710B
Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20817,
(Virtual Meeting).
Contact Person: Magnus A. Azuine, Ph.D.,
Scientific Review Branch, Eunice Kennedy
Shriver, National Institute of Child Health &
Human Development, NIH, 6710B Rockledge
Drive, Room 2125C, Bethesda, MD 20817,
(301) 480–4645, magnus.azuine@nih.gov.
(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance
Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research;
93.865, Research for Mothers and Children;
93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation
Research; 93.209, Contraception and
Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National
Institutes of Health, HHS)
Pursuant to section 1009 of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, as
amended, notice is hereby given of the
following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the
public in accordance with the
provisions set forth in sections
552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C.,
as amended. The grant applications and
the discussions could disclose
confidential trade secrets or commercial
property such as patentable material,
and personal information concerning
individuals associated with the grant
applications, the disclosure of which
would constitute a clearly unwarranted
invasion of personal privacy.
Name of Committee: Eunice Kennedy
Shriver National Institute of Child Health
and Human Development Special Emphasis
Panel; Member Conflict: Function, and
Rehabilitation Sciences Study Section.
Date: March 5, 2024.
Time: 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
Agenda: To review and evaluate grant
applications.
Place: National Institutes of Health, Eunice
Kennedy Shriver, National Institute of Child
Health and Human Development, 6710B
Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20817,
(Virtual Meeting).
Contact Person: Magnus A. Azuine, Ph.D.,
Scientific Review Branch, Eunice Kennedy
Shriver, National Institute of Child Health &
Human Development, NIH, 6710B Rockledge
Drive, Room 2125C, Bethesda, MD 20817,
(301) 480–4645, magnus.azuine@nih.gov.
(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance
Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research;
93.865, Research for Mothers and Children;
93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation
Research; 93.209, Contraception and
Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National
Institutes of Health, HHS)
Dated: January 12, 2024.
Lauren A. Fleck,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory
Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2024–00899 Filed 1–17–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140–01–P
Dated: January 12, 2024.
Lauren A. Fleck,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory
Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2024–00900 Filed 1–17–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140–01–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:32 Jan 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
3411
Fish and Wildlife Service
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Establishment of an
Experimental Population of the Grizzly
Bear in the Bitterroot Ecosystem of the
States of Idaho and Montana;
Environmental Impact Statement
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notification of intent,
announcement of public meetings, and
request for comments.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), intend to
prepare an environmental impact
statement (EIS) under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as
amended, to evaluate the potential
environmental impacts of restoring the
grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) to
the Bitterroot Ecosystem (BE), a portion
of the species’ historical range, in
Montana and Idaho. We previously
issued a final EIS, record of decision,
and final rule under section 10(j) of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended, to reintroduce grizzly bears to
the BE as a nonessential experimental
population. However, conditions have
changed, so we intend to reevaluate a
range of options to restore the grizzly
bear to the BE during the development
of a new EIS. We invite input from other
Federal and State agencies, Tribes,
nongovernmental organizations, privatesector businesses, and members of the
public on the scope of the EIS,
alternatives to our proposed approaches
for assisting in the restoration of the
grizzly bear in the BE, and the pertinent
issues that we should address in the
EIS. We also invite the public and
interested parties to attend virtual
public scoping meetings.
DATES:
Comment submission: We will accept
comments received or postmarked on or
before March 18, 2024. Comments
submitted electronically using the
Federal eRulemaking Portal (see
ADDRESSES, below) must be received by
11:59 p.m. eastern time on the closing
date.
Public scoping meetings: We will host
at least two virtual public scoping
meetings to share information regarding
the development of the draft EIS and
allow the public to ask questions
regarding the scope of issues and the
proposed alternatives. We will
announce the dates, times, and details
of these virtual public scoping meetings
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\18JAN1.SGM
18JAN1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
3412
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2024 / Notices
through local and regional media, press
releases, emails, social media, and on
our website at https://www.fws.gov/
bitterrooteis.
ADDRESSES:
Comment submission: You may
submit comments by one of the
following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. In the Search box,
enter FWS–R6–ES–2023–0203, which is
the docket number for this action. Then,
click on the Search button. You may
submit a comment by clicking on
‘‘Comment.’’
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail
to: Public Comments Processing, Attn:
FWS–R6–ES–2023–0203, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, MS: PRB/3W, 5275
Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041–
3803.
We request that you send comments
only by the methods described above.
We will post all comments on https://
www.regulations.gov. This generally
means that we will post any personal
information you provide us (see
Information Requested, below, for more
information).
Availability of supporting materials:
Supporting materials, such as the
previous final EIS (Service 2000a,
entire), the previous record of decision
(ROD) (Service 2000b, entire), and the
species status assessment report
(Service 2023, entire), are available on
the Service’s website at https://
www.fws.gov/bitterrooteis and at https://
www.regulations.gov at Docket No.
FWS–R6–ES–2023–0203.
Public scoping meetings: We will host
at least two virtual public scoping
meetings to share information regarding
the development of the draft EIS and
allow the public to ask questions
regarding the scope of issues and the
proposed alternatives. Although we will
not solicit oral comments at these
virtual public meetings, written
comments may be submitted at any time
during the scoping process. See
Comment submission, above, for
information on how to submit
comments. We will announce the
details regarding how to participate in
these virtual public scoping meetings
through local and regional media, press
releases, emails, social media, and on
our website at https://www.fws.gov/
bitterrooteis.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Hilary Cooley, Grizzly Bear Recovery
Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Grizzly Bear Recovery Office,
University Hall, Room #309, University
of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812;
telephone 406–243–4903. Individuals in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:32 Jan 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
the United States who are deaf,
deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a
speech disability may dial 711 (TTY,
TDD, or TeleBraille) to access
telecommunications relay services.
Individuals outside the United States
should use the relay services offered
within their country to make
international calls to the point-of
contact in the United States.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We
announce our intent to prepare an
environmental impact statement (EIS) to
evaluate a range of alternatives to
restore the grizzly bear to the Bitterroot
Ecosystem (BE) in Montana and Idaho.
Alternatives that may be considered
include implementing the existing
nonessential experimental population
(NEP) regulations in title 50 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR
17.84(l) (see 65 FR 69624, November 17,
2000), removing the BE NEP regulations
from the CFR with or without additional
management to aid natural
recolonization, or designating a new
experimental population for the BE
under section 10(j) of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA;
16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). This notification
of intent initiates the scoping process,
which informs the development of the
EIS.
Information Requested
In accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as
amended (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.), we are conducting a public
scoping process to invite input on the
range of alternatives and issues to be
addressed during the preparation of the
EIS. Scoping is an early and open
process for determining the scope of
issues to be addressed and identifying
issues that should be considered in
selecting an alternative for
implementation. Therefore, we request
comments or information from other
government agencies, Native American
Tribes, the scientific community,
industry, or any other interested parties
concerning this action. We particularly
seek comments concerning:
(1) The alternatives that we should
consider for restoring grizzly bears to
the BE;
(2) Other possible action alternatives
that we should consider that meet our
purpose and need and are technically
and economically feasible;
(3) Potential effects that the
preliminary action alternatives could
have on other aspects of the human
environment, including ecological,
aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic,
social, environmental justice, or health
effects;
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
(4) Approaches for managing grizzly
bears in the BE, particularly regarding
potential conflicts with human
activities;
(5) Considerations for grizzly bear
connectivity to the BE; and
(6) Other information relevant to
grizzly bear restoration in the BE and its
impacts on the human environment.
We will consider the comments that
we receive during the development of
the draft EIS. Please include sufficient
information with your submission (such
as scientific journal articles or other
publications) to allow us to verify any
scientific or commercial information
you include. Submissions merely stating
support for, or opposition to, the action
under consideration without providing
supporting information do not provide
substantial information necessary to
support a determination. You may
submit your comments and materials by
one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES,
above. We request that you send
comments only by the methods
described in ADDRESSES.
If you submit information via https://
www.regulations.gov, your entire
submission—including any personal
identifying information—will be posted
on the website. If your submission is
made via a hardcopy that includes
personal identifying information, you
may request at the top of your document
that we withhold this information from
public review. However, we cannot
guarantee that we will be able to do so.
We will post all hardcopy submissions
on https://www.regulations.gov.
Comments and materials we receive,
as well as supporting documentation,
will be available for public inspection
on https://www.regulations.gov.
Background
The grizzly bear is currently listed as
a threatened species in the lower-48
States under the ESA. The BE is one of
six recovery zones identified in the 1993
Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan (USFWS
1993, entire). A recovery zone is an area
large enough and of sufficient habitat
quality to support a recovered grizzly
bear population. The goal of the
recovery plan is to reduce threats to the
grizzly bear in each ecosystem so that
the species can be considered for
delisting due to recovery (USFWS 1993,
p. 33). The grizzly bear is functionally
extirpated in the BE, although there
have been recent instances of individual
grizzly bears dispersing into the
ecosystem. Restoring a viable grizzly
bear population to the BE would
support the overall recovery of the
grizzly bear in the lower-48 States.
Grizzly bears once ranged throughout
most of the Western United States.
E:\FR\FM\18JAN1.SGM
18JAN1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2024 / Notices
However, grizzly bear abundance and
distribution were greatly diminished by
excessive human-caused mortality and
loss of habitat. Since 1975, grizzly bear
populations have increased, and the
species’ range has expanded, in the
Northern Continental Divide, Greater
Yellowstone, Cabinet-Yaak, and Selkirk
ecosystems. Expansion of the
abundance and distribution of the
species increases the redundancy,
representation, and resiliency of grizzly
bears within the lower-48 States and
furthers conservation of the species. Our
species status assessment provides a full
account of the life history, ecology,
range, and historical and current
distribution of grizzly bears in the
lower-48 States (Service 2023, entire).
The BE is one of the largest
contiguous blocks of federally managed
land in the lower-48 States. The BE
contains multiple wilderness areas,
which make up the largest block of
wilderness habitat in the Rocky
Mountains south of Canada. Grizzly
bear recovery requires large blocks of
relatively undisturbed land and remote
areas away from human disturbance.
Due to its large wilderness areas, the BE
offers favorable conditions to restore a
healthy population of grizzly bears and
to improve the long-term survival and
recovery of grizzly bears in the lower-48
States.
In November 2000, we released a final
EIS (Service 2000a, entire), a record of
decision (ROD) (Service 2000b, entire),
and a final rule under section 10(j) of
the ESA (65 FR 69624, November 17,
2000) to reintroduce grizzly bears into
the BE as an NEP. The ROD described
that grizzly bears would be restored to
the BE and that their management
would be guided by recommendations
from a citizen management committee
(Service 2000b, entire). In 2001, we
published a notice of intent proposing
to reevaluate our ROD and select the
‘‘no action’’ alternative as the preferred
alternative (66 FR 33623, June 22, 2001)
and a proposed rule to remove the
section 10(j) designation for the BE and
the accompanying regulations in 50 CFR
17.84(l) (66 FR 33620, June 22, 2001).
However, we never finalized these
proposals, and the NEP designation for
the BE and the associated regulations
remain in place. Additionally, we did
not take any action to implement the
ROD associated with the NEP
designation; specifically, we did not
reintroduce grizzly bears to the BE, and
we did not establish a citizen
management committee.
In November 2021, the Alliance for
the Wild Rockies and Native Ecosystems
Council filed a lawsuit alleging that we
failed to comply with our 2000 final
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:32 Jan 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
rule and ROD to designate an NEP in the
BE and unreasonably delayed
completing our 2001 proposed
rulemaking to rescind the experimental
population designation, in violation of
NEPA and the Administrative Procedure
Act (APA; 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.). AWR et
al. v. Cooley et al., No. 9:21–cv–00136–
DWM (D. Mont.). On March 15, 2023,
the district court ruled that the Service
unreasonably delayed implementing
nondiscretionary actions in our ROD
(Service 2000b, entire), in violation of
NEPA and the APA. The court ordered
the Service to prepare a supplemental
EIS and, if warranted, a new ROD and
final rule under section 10(j) of the ESA.
On April 26, 2023, the court issued an
order approving the Service’s proposal
to complete a new final EIS and ROD
within 43 months from the court’s order
(November 26, 2026).
Given the change in circumstances
since our 2000 ROD (i.e., more
observations of grizzly bears naturally
dispersing into the BE), and in response
to the court’s order, we are now taking
a fresh look at a strategy for supporting
restoration of grizzly bears in the BE.
NEPA Analysis of Section 10 Actions
NEPA requires Federal agencies to
undertake an assessment of
environmental effects of any proposed
action prior to making a final decision
and implementing the decision. NEPA
also established the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ), which
issued regulations implementing the
procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR
parts 1500–1508). The Service has
regulatory authority under the ESA to
manage the conservation and recovery
of federally listed species, including
creating rules and regulations and
permitting legitimate activities that
would otherwise be prohibited by the
ESA. Development of a section 10(j) rule
under the ESA is a Federal action
requiring review under NEPA.
Consistent with CEQ guidance for
implementing NEPA, we intend to
complete an EIS to consider approaches
to restore the grizzly bear to the BE. The
EIS will address the potential
environmental impacts of a range of
reasonable alternatives (including
rulemaking actions) under section 10 of
the ESA. The potential environmental
impacts assessed in the EIS could
include the effects on grizzly bears from
management measures; effects on other
environmental resources such as other
federally listed species and cultural and
Tribal resources; potential
socioeconomic effects, including
impacts on economic activities such as
tourism and agriculture; and effects on
a range of other resources identified
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
3413
through internal and external scoping.
We will address our compliance with
other applicable authorities in our
NEPA review.
Purpose and Need for Agency Action
The purpose of our action is to restore
a grizzly bear population to the BE that:
is demographically viable; is well
distributed throughout the BE; can
increase and sustain itself at a recovered
level; is protected by regulations,
policies, or guidelines that (a) ensure
grizzly bears and their habitats maintain
long-term viability and connectivity and
(b) provide management flexibilities to
foster human social tolerance; and
contributes to rangewide recovery of
grizzly bears in the lower-48 States.
This action is needed to comply with
the April 26, 2023, order in AWR et al.
v. Cooley et al., No. 9:21–cv–00136–
DWM (D. Mont.). This action is also
needed because the BE, one of six
ecosystems identified for the recovery of
the grizzly bear in the lower-48 States
(USFWS 1993, entire), is functionally
extirpated. Although we previously
decided to reintroduce grizzly bears into
the BE (Service 2000b, entire), we have
not implemented that decision. Since
designating the NEP in 2000, we have
observed individual bears from other
ecosystems dispersing through the BE
and adjacent areas with greater
regularity, particularly in the past
several years. We now anticipate that a
population of grizzly bears (defined as
two or more breeding females or one
female with two consecutive litters) may
become established in the BE through
natural recolonization in the next 15 to
20 years.
Preliminary Alternatives
During the development of the draft
EIS, we will consider a range of
reasonable alternatives, including a no
action, a proposed action, and
preliminary alternatives. Our proposed
action is to restore grizzly bears in the
BE. Potential preliminary alternatives
will include the following approaches:
active reintroduction with or without
designating a new experimental
population in the BE, actions to support
natural recolonization, actions to
facilitate connectivity, or repealing or
revising the existing NEP designation.
These approaches may be considered
separately or in any combination in the
EIS.
Under our preliminary no action
alternative, the status quo of current
grizzly bear management would
continue as currently implemented. We
would not pursue reintroduction or
changes to current management
practices.
E:\FR\FM\18JAN1.SGM
18JAN1
3414
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2024 / Notices
Summary of Potential Expected Impacts
We expect that the alternatives could
potentially restore a grizzly bear
population to the BE with varying
success and in varying timeframes.
Potential impacts from implementing
the alternatives may include
environmental impacts on fish and
wildlife (including grizzly bears),
wilderness areas, visitor use and
recreational experience, public and
employee safety, socioeconomics, and
Tribal cultural and related resources.
We intend to explore these and other
potential expected impacts during the
development of the draft EIS.
Anticipated Permits and Authorizations
We will comply with the ESA to
evaluate potential impacts to threatened
and endangered species. We will fulfill
the public involvement requirements
under the National Historic Preservation
Act (54 U.S.C. 306108) as provided in
36 CFR 800.2(d)(3). Information about
historic and cultural resources within
the area potentially affected by the
alternatives will assist us in identifying
and evaluating impacts to such
resources and consulting with affected
Indian Tribes and the State Historic
Preservation Officer(s) on the potential
for adverse effects.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Anticipated Schedule for the EIS
We expect to make the draft EIS
available for public review and
comment before the end of 2025. After
public review and comment of the draft,
we expect to make the final EIS
available to the public in the fall of
2026. We then expect to issue a ROD by
November 2026, pursuant to a courtordered timeline, and if applicable,
would issue a subsequent rulemaking
under section 10(j) of the ESA soon
after.
Responsibilities to Tribes
The Service has unique
responsibilities to Tribes, including
under the National Historic Preservation
Act (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), American
Indian Religious Freedom Act (42 U.S.C.
1996), Native American Graves
Protection and Repatriation Act (25
U.S.C. 3001), and Religious Freedom
Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C.
2000bb et seq.); Executive Order 13007,
Indian Sacred Sites (61 FR 26771, May
29, 1996); Joint Secretarial Order 3403,
Fulfilling the Trust Responsibility to
Indian Tribes in the Stewardship of
Federal Lands and Waters (November
15, 2021) and Secretarial Order 3206,
American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal
Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the
ESA (June 5, 1997); Director’s Order
227, Fulfilling the Trust Responsibility
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:32 Jan 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
to Tribes and the Native Hawaiian
Community, and Other Obligations to
Alaska Native Corporations and Alaska
Native Organizations, in the
Stewardship of Federal Lands and
Waters; and the Service’s Native
American Policy (510 FW 1).
We apply the term ‘‘Tribal’’ or
‘‘Tribe(s)’’ generally to federally
recognized Tribes and Alaska Native
Tribal entities. The Service will
separately consult with Tribes on the
proposals set forth in this document. We
will also ensure that those Tribes
wishing to engage directly in the NEPA
process will have the opportunity to do
so. As part of this process, we will
protect the confidential nature of any
consultations and other
communications we have with Tribes,
to the extent permitted by the Freedom
of Information Act and other laws.
References
A list of the references cited in this
document is available at https://
www.regulations.gov in Docket No.
FWS–R6–ES–2023–0203.
Authors
The primary authors of this document
are the staff members of the Grizzly Bear
Recovery Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authority
The authorities for this action are the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
Anna Mun˜oz,
Deputy Regional Director, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2024–00873 Filed 1–17–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of the Secretary
[24XD4523WS DS64900000
DWSN00000.000000 DP.64916; OMB Control
Number 1093–0011]
Agency Information Collection
Activities; DOI Talent Registration
Office of the Secretary, Interior.
Notice of information collection;
request for comment.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we,
the Office of the Secretary are proposing
to renew an information collection.
DATES: Interested persons are invited to
submit comments on or before March
18, 2024.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Send your comments on
this information collection request (ICR)
by mail to Jeffrey Parrillo, 1849 C Street
NW, Washington, DC 20240; or by email
to DOI-PRA@ios.doi.gov. Please
reference OMB Control Number 1093–
0011 in the subject line of your
comments.
ADDRESSES:
To
request additional information about
this ICR, contact Jeffrey Parrillo by
email at DOI-PRA@ios.doi.gov, or by
telephone at 202–208–7072. Individuals
in the United States who are deaf,
deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a
speech disability may dial 711 (TTY,
TDD, or TeleBraille) to access
telecommunications relay services.
Individuals outside the United States
should use the relay services offered
within their country to make
international calls to the point-ofcontact in the United States.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In
accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.) and 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), all
information collections require approval
under the PRA. We may not conduct or
sponsor and you are not required to
respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.
As part of our continuing effort to
reduce paperwork and respondent
burdens, we invite the public and other
Federal agencies to comment on new,
proposed, revised, and continuing
collections of information. This helps us
assess the impact of our information
collection requirements and minimize
the public’s reporting burden. It also
helps the public understand our
information collection requirements and
provide the requested data in the
desired format.
We are especially interested in public
comment addressing the following:
(1) Whether or not the collection of
information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the
agency, including whether or not the
information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the
burden for this collection of
information, including the validity of
the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and
(4) How might the agency minimize
the burden of the collection of
information on those who are to
respond, including through the use of
appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological
collection techniques or other forms of
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
E:\FR\FM\18JAN1.SGM
18JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 12 (Thursday, January 18, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3411-3414]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-00873]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2023-0203; FXES11130600000-223-FF06E00000]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Establishment of
an Experimental Population of the Grizzly Bear in the Bitterroot
Ecosystem of the States of Idaho and Montana; Environmental Impact
Statement
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notification of intent, announcement of public meetings, and
request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), intend to
prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, to evaluate the potential
environmental impacts of restoring the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos
horribilis) to the Bitterroot Ecosystem (BE), a portion of the species'
historical range, in Montana and Idaho. We previously issued a final
EIS, record of decision, and final rule under section 10(j) of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, to reintroduce grizzly
bears to the BE as a nonessential experimental population. However,
conditions have changed, so we intend to reevaluate a range of options
to restore the grizzly bear to the BE during the development of a new
EIS. We invite input from other Federal and State agencies, Tribes,
nongovernmental organizations, private-sector businesses, and members
of the public on the scope of the EIS, alternatives to our proposed
approaches for assisting in the restoration of the grizzly bear in the
BE, and the pertinent issues that we should address in the EIS. We also
invite the public and interested parties to attend virtual public
scoping meetings.
DATES:
Comment submission: We will accept comments received or postmarked
on or before March 18, 2024. Comments submitted electronically using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received
by 11:59 p.m. eastern time on the closing date.
Public scoping meetings: We will host at least two virtual public
scoping meetings to share information regarding the development of the
draft EIS and allow the public to ask questions regarding the scope of
issues and the proposed alternatives. We will announce the dates,
times, and details of these virtual public scoping meetings
[[Page 3412]]
through local and regional media, press releases, emails, social media,
and on our website at https://www.fws.gov/bitterrooteis.
ADDRESSES:
Comment submission: You may submit comments by one of the following
methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R6-ES-2023-0203,
which is the docket number for this action. Then, click on the Search
button. You may submit a comment by clicking on ``Comment.''
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS-R6-ES-2023-0203, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
MS: PRB/3W, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).
Availability of supporting materials: Supporting materials, such as
the previous final EIS (Service 2000a, entire), the previous record of
decision (ROD) (Service 2000b, entire), and the species status
assessment report (Service 2023, entire), are available on the
Service's website at https://www.fws.gov/bitterrooteis and at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2023-0203.
Public scoping meetings: We will host at least two virtual public
scoping meetings to share information regarding the development of the
draft EIS and allow the public to ask questions regarding the scope of
issues and the proposed alternatives. Although we will not solicit oral
comments at these virtual public meetings, written comments may be
submitted at any time during the scoping process. See Comment
submission, above, for information on how to submit comments. We will
announce the details regarding how to participate in these virtual
public scoping meetings through local and regional media, press
releases, emails, social media, and on our website at https://www.fws.gov/bitterrooteis.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hilary Cooley, Grizzly Bear Recovery
Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Grizzly Bear Recovery
Office, University Hall, Room #309, University of Montana, Missoula, MT
59812; telephone 406-243-4903. Individuals in the United States who are
deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial
711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay
services. Individuals outside the United States should use the relay
services offered within their country to make international calls to
the point-of contact in the United States.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We announce our intent to prepare an
environmental impact statement (EIS) to evaluate a range of
alternatives to restore the grizzly bear to the Bitterroot Ecosystem
(BE) in Montana and Idaho. Alternatives that may be considered include
implementing the existing nonessential experimental population (NEP)
regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50
CFR 17.84(l) (see 65 FR 69624, November 17, 2000), removing the BE NEP
regulations from the CFR with or without additional management to aid
natural recolonization, or designating a new experimental population
for the BE under section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973,
as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). This notification of intent
initiates the scoping process, which informs the development of the
EIS.
Information Requested
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,
as amended (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), we are conducting a public
scoping process to invite input on the range of alternatives and issues
to be addressed during the preparation of the EIS. Scoping is an early
and open process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed
and identifying issues that should be considered in selecting an
alternative for implementation. Therefore, we request comments or
information from other government agencies, Native American Tribes, the
scientific community, industry, or any other interested parties
concerning this action. We particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) The alternatives that we should consider for restoring grizzly
bears to the BE;
(2) Other possible action alternatives that we should consider that
meet our purpose and need and are technically and economically
feasible;
(3) Potential effects that the preliminary action alternatives
could have on other aspects of the human environment, including
ecological, aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social,
environmental justice, or health effects;
(4) Approaches for managing grizzly bears in the BE, particularly
regarding potential conflicts with human activities;
(5) Considerations for grizzly bear connectivity to the BE; and
(6) Other information relevant to grizzly bear restoration in the
BE and its impacts on the human environment.
We will consider the comments that we receive during the
development of the draft EIS. Please include sufficient information
with your submission (such as scientific journal articles or other
publications) to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial
information you include. Submissions merely stating support for, or
opposition to, the action under consideration without providing
supporting information do not provide substantial information necessary
to support a determination. You may submit your comments and materials
by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES, above. We request that you
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
If you submit information via https://www.regulations.gov, your
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will
be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the
top of your document that we withhold this information from public
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We
will post all hardcopy submissions on https://www.regulations.gov.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation, will be available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov.
Background
The grizzly bear is currently listed as a threatened species in the
lower-48 States under the ESA. The BE is one of six recovery zones
identified in the 1993 Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan (USFWS 1993, entire).
A recovery zone is an area large enough and of sufficient habitat
quality to support a recovered grizzly bear population. The goal of the
recovery plan is to reduce threats to the grizzly bear in each
ecosystem so that the species can be considered for delisting due to
recovery (USFWS 1993, p. 33). The grizzly bear is functionally
extirpated in the BE, although there have been recent instances of
individual grizzly bears dispersing into the ecosystem. Restoring a
viable grizzly bear population to the BE would support the overall
recovery of the grizzly bear in the lower-48 States.
Grizzly bears once ranged throughout most of the Western United
States.
[[Page 3413]]
However, grizzly bear abundance and distribution were greatly
diminished by excessive human-caused mortality and loss of habitat.
Since 1975, grizzly bear populations have increased, and the species'
range has expanded, in the Northern Continental Divide, Greater
Yellowstone, Cabinet-Yaak, and Selkirk ecosystems. Expansion of the
abundance and distribution of the species increases the redundancy,
representation, and resiliency of grizzly bears within the lower-48
States and furthers conservation of the species. Our species status
assessment provides a full account of the life history, ecology, range,
and historical and current distribution of grizzly bears in the lower-
48 States (Service 2023, entire).
The BE is one of the largest contiguous blocks of federally managed
land in the lower-48 States. The BE contains multiple wilderness areas,
which make up the largest block of wilderness habitat in the Rocky
Mountains south of Canada. Grizzly bear recovery requires large blocks
of relatively undisturbed land and remote areas away from human
disturbance. Due to its large wilderness areas, the BE offers favorable
conditions to restore a healthy population of grizzly bears and to
improve the long-term survival and recovery of grizzly bears in the
lower-48 States.
In November 2000, we released a final EIS (Service 2000a, entire),
a record of decision (ROD) (Service 2000b, entire), and a final rule
under section 10(j) of the ESA (65 FR 69624, November 17, 2000) to
reintroduce grizzly bears into the BE as an NEP. The ROD described that
grizzly bears would be restored to the BE and that their management
would be guided by recommendations from a citizen management committee
(Service 2000b, entire). In 2001, we published a notice of intent
proposing to reevaluate our ROD and select the ``no action''
alternative as the preferred alternative (66 FR 33623, June 22, 2001)
and a proposed rule to remove the section 10(j) designation for the BE
and the accompanying regulations in 50 CFR 17.84(l) (66 FR 33620, June
22, 2001). However, we never finalized these proposals, and the NEP
designation for the BE and the associated regulations remain in place.
Additionally, we did not take any action to implement the ROD
associated with the NEP designation; specifically, we did not
reintroduce grizzly bears to the BE, and we did not establish a citizen
management committee.
In November 2021, the Alliance for the Wild Rockies and Native
Ecosystems Council filed a lawsuit alleging that we failed to comply
with our 2000 final rule and ROD to designate an NEP in the BE and
unreasonably delayed completing our 2001 proposed rulemaking to rescind
the experimental population designation, in violation of NEPA and the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA; 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.). AWR et al. v.
Cooley et al., No. 9:21-cv-00136-DWM (D. Mont.). On March 15, 2023, the
district court ruled that the Service unreasonably delayed implementing
nondiscretionary actions in our ROD (Service 2000b, entire), in
violation of NEPA and the APA. The court ordered the Service to prepare
a supplemental EIS and, if warranted, a new ROD and final rule under
section 10(j) of the ESA. On April 26, 2023, the court issued an order
approving the Service's proposal to complete a new final EIS and ROD
within 43 months from the court's order (November 26, 2026).
Given the change in circumstances since our 2000 ROD (i.e., more
observations of grizzly bears naturally dispersing into the BE), and in
response to the court's order, we are now taking a fresh look at a
strategy for supporting restoration of grizzly bears in the BE.
NEPA Analysis of Section 10 Actions
NEPA requires Federal agencies to undertake an assessment of
environmental effects of any proposed action prior to making a final
decision and implementing the decision. NEPA also established the
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), which issued regulations
implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-
1508). The Service has regulatory authority under the ESA to manage the
conservation and recovery of federally listed species, including
creating rules and regulations and permitting legitimate activities
that would otherwise be prohibited by the ESA. Development of a section
10(j) rule under the ESA is a Federal action requiring review under
NEPA.
Consistent with CEQ guidance for implementing NEPA, we intend to
complete an EIS to consider approaches to restore the grizzly bear to
the BE. The EIS will address the potential environmental impacts of a
range of reasonable alternatives (including rulemaking actions) under
section 10 of the ESA. The potential environmental impacts assessed in
the EIS could include the effects on grizzly bears from management
measures; effects on other environmental resources such as other
federally listed species and cultural and Tribal resources; potential
socioeconomic effects, including impacts on economic activities such as
tourism and agriculture; and effects on a range of other resources
identified through internal and external scoping. We will address our
compliance with other applicable authorities in our NEPA review.
Purpose and Need for Agency Action
The purpose of our action is to restore a grizzly bear population
to the BE that: is demographically viable; is well distributed
throughout the BE; can increase and sustain itself at a recovered
level; is protected by regulations, policies, or guidelines that (a)
ensure grizzly bears and their habitats maintain long-term viability
and connectivity and (b) provide management flexibilities to foster
human social tolerance; and contributes to rangewide recovery of
grizzly bears in the lower-48 States.
This action is needed to comply with the April 26, 2023, order in
AWR et al. v. Cooley et al., No. 9:21-cv-00136-DWM (D. Mont.). This
action is also needed because the BE, one of six ecosystems identified
for the recovery of the grizzly bear in the lower-48 States (USFWS
1993, entire), is functionally extirpated. Although we previously
decided to reintroduce grizzly bears into the BE (Service 2000b,
entire), we have not implemented that decision. Since designating the
NEP in 2000, we have observed individual bears from other ecosystems
dispersing through the BE and adjacent areas with greater regularity,
particularly in the past several years. We now anticipate that a
population of grizzly bears (defined as two or more breeding females or
one female with two consecutive litters) may become established in the
BE through natural recolonization in the next 15 to 20 years.
Preliminary Alternatives
During the development of the draft EIS, we will consider a range
of reasonable alternatives, including a no action, a proposed action,
and preliminary alternatives. Our proposed action is to restore grizzly
bears in the BE. Potential preliminary alternatives will include the
following approaches: active reintroduction with or without designating
a new experimental population in the BE, actions to support natural
recolonization, actions to facilitate connectivity, or repealing or
revising the existing NEP designation. These approaches may be
considered separately or in any combination in the EIS.
Under our preliminary no action alternative, the status quo of
current grizzly bear management would continue as currently
implemented. We would not pursue reintroduction or changes to current
management practices.
[[Page 3414]]
Summary of Potential Expected Impacts
We expect that the alternatives could potentially restore a grizzly
bear population to the BE with varying success and in varying
timeframes. Potential impacts from implementing the alternatives may
include environmental impacts on fish and wildlife (including grizzly
bears), wilderness areas, visitor use and recreational experience,
public and employee safety, socioeconomics, and Tribal cultural and
related resources. We intend to explore these and other potential
expected impacts during the development of the draft EIS.
Anticipated Permits and Authorizations
We will comply with the ESA to evaluate potential impacts to
threatened and endangered species. We will fulfill the public
involvement requirements under the National Historic Preservation Act
(54 U.S.C. 306108) as provided in 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3). Information about
historic and cultural resources within the area potentially affected by
the alternatives will assist us in identifying and evaluating impacts
to such resources and consulting with affected Indian Tribes and the
State Historic Preservation Officer(s) on the potential for adverse
effects.
Anticipated Schedule for the EIS
We expect to make the draft EIS available for public review and
comment before the end of 2025. After public review and comment of the
draft, we expect to make the final EIS available to the public in the
fall of 2026. We then expect to issue a ROD by November 2026, pursuant
to a court-ordered timeline, and if applicable, would issue a
subsequent rulemaking under section 10(j) of the ESA soon after.
Responsibilities to Tribes
The Service has unique responsibilities to Tribes, including under
the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.),
American Indian Religious Freedom Act (42 U.S.C. 1996), Native American
Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (25 U.S.C. 3001), and Religious
Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.); Executive
Order 13007, Indian Sacred Sites (61 FR 26771, May 29, 1996); Joint
Secretarial Order 3403, Fulfilling the Trust Responsibility to Indian
Tribes in the Stewardship of Federal Lands and Waters (November 15,
2021) and Secretarial Order 3206, American Indian Tribal Rights,
Federal Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the ESA (June 5, 1997);
Director's Order 227, Fulfilling the Trust Responsibility to Tribes and
the Native Hawaiian Community, and Other Obligations to Alaska Native
Corporations and Alaska Native Organizations, in the Stewardship of
Federal Lands and Waters; and the Service's Native American Policy (510
FW 1).
We apply the term ``Tribal'' or ``Tribe(s)'' generally to federally
recognized Tribes and Alaska Native Tribal entities. The Service will
separately consult with Tribes on the proposals set forth in this
document. We will also ensure that those Tribes wishing to engage
directly in the NEPA process will have the opportunity to do so. As
part of this process, we will protect the confidential nature of any
consultations and other communications we have with Tribes, to the
extent permitted by the Freedom of Information Act and other laws.
References
A list of the references cited in this document is available at
https://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2023-0203.
Authors
The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the
Grizzly Bear Recovery Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authority
The authorities for this action are the Endangered Species Act of
1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
Anna Mu[ntilde]oz,
Deputy Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2024-00873 Filed 1-17-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
